Contrasts

It has sure been a couple of days of contrast. In the United States there was the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. The election brought joy and elation to many; sorrow and dejection to others. Here in Malaysia it was greeted with joy. Yesterday morning when I saw the front page of The New Straits Times it read, "CHANGE HAS COME. Now for the hard part....NOW Barack Obama must validate the hope and deliver the change he promised." By contrast, this morning's front page read, "THE BIGGEST & MOST EXPLOSIVE BOND OF ALL! Gritty & Spectacular Action! JAMES BOND: QUANTUM OF SOLACE 7."

In North America the contrasts were almost as radical as the headlines in the newspapers here. On the one hand, Barack Obama, cast by many people as a liberal, some even suggested a socialist, won the presidential election by a healthy majority. On the other hand, the states of California, Arizona, and Florida all passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as heterosexual only. Change? Yes. But, not too much? What to make of the contrasts? I do not know.

On the one hand, I can tell you that what I heard around this part of the world is people are very happy about the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. I can also tell you that, given the religious and political context here, most of the people would agree with the actions taken by the electorate in California, Arizona, and Florida.

The actions taken in these states set me to thinking. Who defines what marriage is? Does the church, if you are Christian? Does the political system? Do both? In the United States, in 1862, the Morrell Anti-Bigamy Act was passed. This Act made bigamy a punishable federal offense. The passing of this Act was followed by a series of federal laws which worked toward ending polygamy in the United States, in spite of the fact that polygamy was practiced by one religion. What about the separation of religion and state? In 1877, in a US Court ruling, Pennoyer v Neff, it was declared, "[T]he State...has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relationship between its citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved." (cf. Wikipedia article on polygamy)

It appears, at least in the United States, marriage is a legally defined entity, more than a religious one. Thus, the voters in the states of California, Arizona, and Florida had the authority to define marriage. At the same time, just because a relationship has legal standing does not mean the church has to bless that relationship. For example, as once happened to me, if a clergyperson believes the relationship will be an abusive one, does she or he have to officiate in the ceremony, even if the couple has a valid marriage license? It seems to me a clergyperson has the responsibility to refuse to participate in a marriage which she or he believes is not consistent with God's desires, even if the couple shows up with a valid marriage license.

In the denomination of which I have been a member for the past forty-six years it has been said that while the government has the power to define marriage, the church has the responsibility to say what relationship could be blessed, and what relationship could not be blessed. The issue becomes muddied in the United States when a clergyperson officiates at a marriage. At such a service the clergyperson is wearing two hats, that of the church, and that of the state. It is the state which determines who allowed to officiate at a marriage.

With respect to the state, the clergyperson is to determine whether the marriage is in accord with the state laws. This is a fairly easy one to determine. At the same time, the clergyperson wears the hat of the church, praying the prayers of blessing on the relationship, and for the two who have become united in marriage. Is it possible to bless a relationship which has no legal standing? Is it possible to refuse to bless a relationship which has legal standing? Um....what to make of it all.